ChrisNichollsToe Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I know its been said before...but is there any real point in still having this discussion or this thread at all? Houllier has gone and he's never coming back. Well, we keep going on about MoN, so i guess this Houllier thing will just continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 I voted Houllier. I didnt paticularly rate the bloke but at least the football was exciting. He understood how the game was supposed to be played and may have appreciated players like Makoun and Bannan more. I am willing to give Mcleish a chance but I really cant see a positive future under him. His team selections already make me wonder whether he goes into every match hoping not to lose rather than to win. Yes he has had a positive start but this is against Fulham, Blackburn and Wolves. 3 teams we should be beating if we want to end up anywhere positive in terms of league position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 7, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 7, 2011 ...but at least the football was exciting. He understood how the game was supposed to be played and may have appreciated players like Makoun and Bannan more. Really? Have you convinced yourself of that? He dropped Makoun to the bench and Bannan he dropped as soon as he no longer had to play him, Bannan also rarely got a game even off the bench ...whether he goes into every match hoping not to lose rather than to win. All managers do that even Fergie and Wenger. ...Yes he has had a positive start but this is against Fulham, Blackburn and Wolves. 3 teams we should be beating if we want to end up anywhere positive in terms of league position. iirc those results in the main are improvements on the previous season's results or at least on a par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boskos Angel Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 i disagree fulham are a very good side who score goals with a great recent record at the cottage, mccarthy has also built a good side at wolves who have also had an excellent start. Villa have just lost there 2 best players and 10-15 squad players and we have a new manager. I really fail to see how anyone could not be pleased considering all them facts. Fulham away is not a game we should be winning its a very tough fixture. Against wolves for example if heskeys header had gone in itd be a different story. In all 3 games i have seen us create plenty of chances tbh, the team is in a transitional periiod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boskos Angel Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 not saying weve made a fabulous start and yes i was disapointed we didnt beat wolves, but its not as bad as people are making out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 ...but at least the football was exciting. He understood how the game was supposed to be played and may have appreciated players like Makoun and Bannan more. Really? Have you convinced yourself of that? He dropped Makoun to the bench and Bannan he dropped as soon as he no longer had to play him, Bannan also rarely got a game even off the bench ...whether he goes into every match hoping not to lose rather than to win. All managers do that even Fergie and Wenger. ...Yes he has had a positive start but this is against Fulham, Blackburn and Wolves. 3 teams we should be beating if we want to end up anywhere positive in terms of league position. iirc those results in the main are improvements on the previous season's results or at least on a par. I am conviced the football under Houllier would be more exciting yes. That dont mean Im a fan of the bloke but im sure it will be more action packed than the tedious goalless draws being served up this season. Yes, Im fully aware they were dropped to the bench but wasnt this in a team where we still had Young and Downing to pick from? We dont have those luxuries now so rather converting a Shit Striker in Heskey into an Attacking midfielder why not play a player that can pick a pass. And whats all this about Ferguson going into matches hoping not to lose rather than win? Do you think he thought that before they destroyed Arsenal 8-2? I bet he sat at his desk thinking...'Ill play Nani today because he will help us defend Arsenals Corners'....Bollocks. Comparing results already? Lets see how we do against Man City and Liverpool at home/Arsenal away etc. etc. We managed not to lose to a poor Wolves side being the only difference from last year. Great. A point at home to Wolves... I just want us to try and play better football. Im fully aware we're shit, hell I have to take abuse from fans every day for this. But, id rather be shit and try to play attacking and attractive football than shit playing Heskey and Petrov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoD Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Since when has slow tempo possession football become 'attractive' football. Passing the ball around the back and middle third for extended periods is far from exciting. IMO Man Utd play the most exciting football with a good mix of high tempo, 1 touch passing and possession play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Houllier might of nailed it in the end given more time, but the drastic change of style and it being a 'transitional' season saw us drop down the league. Maybe it would of improved later but that one bad season cost us Young and Downing as players don't have the patience to see if things get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Houllier might of nailed it in the end given more time, but the drastic change of style and it being a 'transitional' season saw us drop down the league. Maybe it would of improved later but that one bad season cost us Young and Downing as players don't have the patience to see if things get better. And that is a very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 7, 2011 Houllier might of nailed it in the end given more time, but the drastic change of style and it being a 'transitional' season saw us drop down the league. Maybe it would of improved later but that one bad season cost us Young and Downing as players don't have the patience to see if things get better. Bit of a catch-22 there. If Young and Downing didn't want to wait for things to get better then a more gradual approach to changing our style by Houllier would have hardly made any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Young and Downing were going anyway, blaming that on GH strikes me as being unfair. The deal with United for Young was more or less set up last summer when Ash was persuaded to give it one more year. once Liverpool were in for him, Downing was only ever going there, unless we'd have finished top four last season. I think, FWIW, that Downing improved hugely under GH, as did Bent. Both, imo, were different players, different class even. Even Ash seemed to come on quite alot. The defenders? not so much, but then for the most part, the defenders we have at the club arent all that good. They look good when the team is set up to defend and when they are protected by a couple of deep sitting midfielders, but as soon as they are at all exposed their true worth comes out. GH's style of play imo exposed Dunne especially, but also Collins and Cuellar, as the journeymen they really are. GH got alot wrong. Mostly, I think he tried to do too much too quickly. Alot was wrong when ONeill left, and in order to be a successful club we needed to change those things. We needed to get away from the very British 'lads' culture for one thing and instil a degree of modern professionalism in the place, and naturally that was going to rub up some players the wrong way; specifically those that like a good drink I'd imagine. Still, softly softly skins the monkey I guess and GH went about it with a sledgehammer. He wasnt a Villa man? He didnt 'get' Villa? Welcome to the modern world. Football is all about mercenaries. They come, take a wedge of cash, do their job, and then sod off somewhere else. Some are possibly better and pretending .... GH wasnt one of those for sure, not as good at it as ONeill definitely. Fans, despite the protestations to the contrary, like to be lied to in this way. Personally, I think GH was starting to get more things right than wrong by the end. I was looking forward to the new season, looking forward to seeing who he would sign this window. I think we'd have taken a big step back in the right direction. McLeish, well, he's more the kind of manager for the kind of club Villa is now (as was ONeill I suppose). Set us up as hard to beat, get the lads to graft hard, run about alot, play it simple tactically so that limited players arent asked to do too much, buy players cheap, develop them, sell them on for a profit. This last part, the developing players and selling them for a profit - how well we do this is the main thing we have to do in order to stay in the second tier of clubs. If AM is good at it, we'll be fine, 6th-10th long term, if not, then we'll struggle. With AM, as with MON, we are never going to break through the glass ceiling. Would we have under GH? I dont know, its a huge ask, but I think at least we had a chance in the medium to long term. Fans arent interested in medium to long term though are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted September 7, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 7, 2011 Agree with that totally Mr B. An excellent summary. Though I do think that AM might yet surprise us if given time by fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Yep agreed, although I'm not sure it was the style of football that exposed Dunne, it was more the style of management rubbed him up the wrong way which rightly or wrongly effected him on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Agree with that totally Mr B. An excellent summary. Though I do think that AM might yet surprise us if given time by fans. I agree with some of it, but not all. It's a good pice though. and this but, while accurate to a point, does not get to the real point of Houllier not being a 'Villa Man'. He wasnt a Villa man? He didnt 'get' Villa? Welcome to the modern world. Football is all about mercenaries. They come, take a wedge of cash, do their job, and then sod off somewhere else. Some are possibly better and pretending .... GH wasnt one of those for sure, not as good at it as ONeill definitely. Fans, despite the protestations to the contrary, like to be lied to in this way. Houllier was, quite clearly, still a 'Liverpool Man'. I'll make no excuses for saying I think the man was a massive c*ck. He took the Villa job despite still being obsessed by his beloved Liverpool. He felt wronged by his departure there, and felt he had a point to prove. he denigrated Villa before he was even appointed, and took every opportunity to deflect any blame for anything bad away from his door. Ignoring the farcical nature of his appointment and the farce of that first press conference, he continued to be obsessed with Liverpool, and the crowning dog turd of his tenure came when he effectively jizzed all over liverpool and the now infamous Livergate scandal, where he touched the Anfield sign on the way to the dug out, and then ignored the Villa fans at the final whistle, preferring instead to applaud his beloved scouse fans. And then seemed quite happy at having lost to them. And then didn't even realise what the fuss was about, and came out with some feeble forced apology a few days later. W*nker of ther highest order. All of the above, plus he was shite at getting us any points. What a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Agree with that totally Mr B. An excellent summary. Though I do think that AM might yet surprise us if given time by fans. I agree with some of it, but not all. It's a good pice though. and this but, while accurate to a point, does not get to the real point of Houllier not being a 'Villa Man'. He wasnt a Villa man? He didnt 'get' Villa? Welcome to the modern world. Football is all about mercenaries. They come, take a wedge of cash, do their job, and then sod off somewhere else. Some are possibly better and pretending .... GH wasnt one of those for sure, not as good at it as ONeill definitely. Fans, despite the protestations to the contrary, like to be lied to in this way. Houllier was, quite clearly, still a 'Liverpool Man'. I'll make no excuses for saying I think the man was a massive c*ck. He took the Villa job despite still being obsessed by his beloved Liverpool. He felt wronged by his departure there, and felt he had a point to prove. he denigrated Villa before he was even appointed, and took every opportunity to deflect any blame for anything bad away from his door. Ignoring the farcical nature of his appointment and the farce of that first press conference, he continued to be obsessed with Liverpool, and the crowning dog turd of his tenure came when he effectively jizzed all over liverpool and the now infamous Livergate scandal, where he touched the Anfield sign on the way to the dug out, and then ignored the Villa fans at the final whistle, preferring instead to applaud his beloved scouse fans. And then seemed quite happy at having lost to them. And then didn't even realise what the fuss was about, and came out with some feeble forced apology a few days later. W*nker of ther highest order. All of the above, plus he was shite at getting us any points. What a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 7, 2011 Great piece PB. The only thing I'd change is that it was Collins that was caught out - not Dunne. Sadly, that Liverpool performance by Houllier will forever taint him for many. We never got that kind of stuff from MON who said all the right things and made all the right noises.... ... then left us in the shit and claimed compensation. Still - it's Houllier that's a cock, eh? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Still - it's Houllier that's a cock, eh? :winkold: Houllier left us in the shit and claimed compensation too, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Houllier left us in the shit and claimed compensation too, tbh. Houllier was in effect sacked by Lerner and thus received a severance package Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted September 7, 2011 Still - it's Houllier that's a cock, eh? :winkold: Houllier left us in the shit and claimed compensation too, tbh. Kinda lends itself to the view that "all managers are mecenaries", no? But it's Houllier that gets slated and MON that gets immortalised. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Houllier left us in the shit and claimed compensation too, tbh. Houllier was in effect sacked by Lerner and thus received a severance package Exactly, he was forced out, which is why he got the compo. Just like MON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts